In your previous mail you wrote: If the next 54 bits are always expected to be zero then the prefix should be declared to fe80::/64, and RFC 3513 should be corrected. Do any of the old timers have a take on this one? Jim, Keith, Tony, Brian..... anyone? :-) => there is a semantic problem: - if the question is how to distinguish link-locals using a prefix notation, the answer is fe80::/10. - if the question is what kind of link-local prefixes should be used, for instance in routing tables (i.e., in concrete instances), then the answer is fe80::/64 and in general with a zone id (aka scope id) constraint, i.e., fe80::/64%<link-id>.
Regards [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
